Bush: "We Do Not Torture"

[Commissar]

PANAMA CITY, Panama -    President Bush on Monday defended U.S. interrogation practices and called the treatment of terrorism suspects lawful. "We do not torture," Bush declared in response to reports of secret    CIA prisons overseas.

 

Bush supported an effort spearheaded by Vice President    **** Cheney to block or modify a proposed Senate-passed ban on torture.

 

"We're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it possible, more possible, to do our job," Bush said. "There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet we will aggressively pursue them. But we will do so under the law."

 

Cheney is seeking to persuade Congress to exempt the    Central Intelligence Agency from the proposed torture ban if one is passed by both chambers.

Full text here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_...wh/bush_torture

 

So if we don't torture, why do we need to exempt the CIA from a potential ban on torture?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Injecting people with drugs against their will probably comes under torture. Mentally breaking people probably goes in their too.

 

I guess what he meant is they dont hook peoples nuts up to car batteries and stuff like that.

[Commissar]

Injecting people with drugs against their will probably comes under torture. Mentally breaking people probably goes in their too.

 

I guess what he meant is they dont hook peoples nuts up to car batteries and stuff like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't much care about sleep deprivation or loud music or any of that crap. But we probably waterboard. The gents who train our guys in this sort of thing are very fond of waterboarding. I most definitely consider that a form of torture.

[kumquatq3]

The debate isn't should or shouldn't we allow torture. It's what is torture.

 

Right now there is a grey area. John McCains bill looks to clear that all up. Bush isn't happy about it.

 

What good is being able to look at libary records if you can't sorta torture those who have checked out a Harry Potter book?

[Mojo]

The debate isn't should or shouldn't we allow torture. It's what is torture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some of the threads in the KoTOR forums...

 

 

I would class as torture :D

[Calax]

"But he zapped Santas Balls! HE ZAPPED SANTAS BALLS!"

[Judge Hades]

George W. Bush is an idiot. Saying we don't torture yet we have ample proof that we do thanks to that prison scandal in Iraq. He is jut spouting off more Republican lies.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

George W. Bush is an idiot.  Saying we don't torture yet we have ample proof that we do thanks to that prison scandal in Iraq.  He is jut spouting off more Republican lies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not the same thing. When he says it he means as a matter of policy. What individuals do is not down to him, as long as they are punished for their actions via the legal system thats about all he can do.

[Judge Hades]

I'm sorry, but I hold the chain of command as responsible. From the lowliest private to the commander and chief.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'm sorry, but I hold the chain of command as responsible.  From the lowliest private to the commander and chief.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well unless he could look over everyones shoulder 24/7 that's a totally unrealistic view.

 

If it were a matter of policy thats a different matter. But your just looking for any excuse to fuel your Bush hate.

[Judge Hades]

I don't need an excuse.

 

A commander and chief is ultimately responsible for the actions of those under his command. Plain and simple truth. Policy or not, if someone under his command breaks the law, do something unsavory, he is also to blame. After all if we didn't invade Iraq no US soldier would be a part of that prison scandal. It simply would not have happened.

 

It is however, policy to torture via the CIA. I think that such measure needs to be in place and we need to have strict guidelines on what is and is not torture.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I don't need an excuse.

 

A commander and chief is ultimately responsible for the actions of those under his command.  Plain and simple truth.  Policy or not, if someone under his command breaks the law, do something unsavory, he is also to blame.  After all if we didn't invade Iraq no US soldier would be a part of that prison scandal.  It simply would not have happened. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not unless they have culpability. You don't see commanders court martialed when a soldier does something wrong.

 

And if Saddam had complied it wouldnt have happened either. You can chase that line all day, but it still dosnt make Bush responsible for the actions of individuals

[Judge Hades]

He put the soldiers there in the first place. He made that situation possible. He is just as to blame. ALso, of course you don't see any of the higher ups going to trial. They have the resources to keep teir asses covered.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

He put the soldiers there in the first place.  He made that situation possible.  He is just as to blame.  ALso, of course you don't see any of the higher ups going to trial.  They have the resources to keep teir asses covered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Might be your view. But it's not the legal facts.

 

You can't be held responsible for the action of people under your command unless you contributed to them in some way.

 

Since it's not US policy to torture people in that way Bush isnt responsible for it.

[Judge Hades]

Its not official policy, but unofficially it is quite different.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Its not official policy, but unofficially it is quite different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They got punished for it. Hardly see that as condoning it.

[Judge Hades]

They were not punished for the act. They were punished for getting caught and it gives better PR for the Bush Administration. Lets look at the motivations behind the punishment, not the act of punishment itself.

Edited November 8, 2005 by Hades_One

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

They were not punished for the act.  They were punished for getting caught and it gives better PR for the Bush Administration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well catching someone is a prerequiste to punishing them at least in most legal systems.

[Judge Hades]

I should have said that the media caught them. If the authorities knew about this but the news media didn't have a clue, I bet you that this would still be going on.

[Commissar]

You can't be held responsible for the action of people under your command unless you contributed to them in some way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, you can. That's the military.

 

However, I think Hades' argument is a little crazy. On the other hand, I don't see why clarifying our stance on the issue of torture is such a bad idea.

[Hildegard]

You can't be held responsible for the action of people under your command unless you contributed to them in some way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, you can. That's the military.

 

However, I think Hades' argument is a little crazy. On the other hand, I don't see why clarifying our stance on the issue of torture is such a bad idea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well Bush's statement is quite clear - We Do Not Tortue (on US soil) and CIA's 'black sites' that were set up after 9/11 in Poland, Romania, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Thailand.....God knows where else, are probably nothing but Americas centers for distributing candy for children as a wide spread strategy of 'win the hearts and minds'.

As soon as this dust, started by the HRW, settles down - the CIA and the SOC will continue with their 'distribution of candy' - that's for sure......

[Pope]

"There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again."

To Americans, there will always be a lurking plotting planning enemy out there... Statements like this keep reminding me of Bowling For Columbine, the little Brief History Of America cartoon in particular.

 

sigh

[Dark Moth]

I should have said that the media caught them.  If the authorities knew about this but the news media didn't have a clue, I bet you that this would still be going on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe your statement would have some shred of credibility if this were not an isolated incident that clearly contradicted U.S. policy. You forget that Abu Graib was done by only a handful of soldiers out of thousands serving in Iraq. Nothing else of that calibur has been found. As Shadowpaladin pointed out, it's not that the U.S. never tortures, it's that the U.S.'s policy is to not torture those in captivity. Those who do so are the exception, not the rule.

[Commissar]

I should have said that the media caught them.  If the authorities knew about this but the news media didn't have a clue, I bet you that this would still be going on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe your statement would have some shred of credibility if this were not an isolated incident that clearly contradicted U.S. policy. You forget that Abu Graib was done by only a handful of soldiers out of thousands serving in Iraq. Nothing else of that calibur has been found. As Shadowpaladin pointed out, it's not that the U.S. never tortures, it's that the U.S.'s policy is to not torture those in captivity. Those who do so are the exception, not the rule.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, five Rangers got charged yesterday with abusing prisoners. And if you believe Fishback, it's a lot more widespread than we'd prefer. I do believe him in his claims that he tried for months to get some sort of clarifying statement from the chain of command about treatment of detainees. There's a lot of vagueness going around.

[Dark Moth]

Actually, five Rangers got charged yesterday with abusing prisoners.  And if you believe Fishback, it's a lot more widespread than we'd prefer.  I do believe him in his claims that he tried for months to get some sort of clarifying statement from the chain of command about treatment of detainees.  There's a lot of vagueness going around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But Hades is making it seem like torture is a routine policy of the U.S. The fact that these soldiers get arrested in the first place for it, and the public outcry they face as well, should make our stance clear, shouldn't it?

Edited November 8, 2005 by Mothman